Search results

The purpose of this study is to investigate characteristics of apparel-related critical incidents that motivate both Generation Z and Y consumers to share electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) via specific online channels.

The current research used an exploratory mixed-methods approach.

Qualitative findings of critical incidents revealed that the main situations that led to the spread of eWOM involved new purchases (49%), product quality (21%), pricing and promotions (19%), complaints (9%) and brand content (48%). Participants were motivated to spread information about the critical incidents by a desire to connect with friends and family (83%), help others (37%), influence others (48%) and express brand loyalty (32%). Quantitative results indicated significant relationships between critical incidents, motivations and eWOM channel choice.

This study has theoretical implications for apparel researchers attempting to gain insight into critical incidents that motivate consumers to engage in eWOM on specific channels in a positive or negative manner.

These findings are important for marketers as it appears that brand content does an efficient job at driving engagement on SM; marketers need to increase efforts to engage with consumers via feedback on websites, as this is an opportunity to counteract negative experiences and retain consumers’ loyalty.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, the current research is the first to extend theories of communication and motivation to connect critical incidents with situational intrinsic and extrinsic motivations for spreading eWOM via online channels for Millennial and Generation Z consumers.

This article provides an overviews of the concept of racelighting. Racelighting is “is an act of psychological manipulation where Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) receive racial messages that lead them to second-guess their lived experiences with racism”

This conceptual paper articulates four primary ways that racelighting manifests in the lives and experiences of Black, Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC).

There are four common messages that often lead to racelighting: stereotype advancement, resistive actions, inauthentic allyship and misrepresenting the past.

While much has been written about gaslighting, few frameworks articulate how gaslighting occurs in a racialized context.

The purpose of this study is to investigate how mock jurors’ experiences of deliberations are impacted by the defendant having a personality disorder.

This study used a qualitative approach to explore mock jurors’ experiences during the deliberations of a fictional defendant, Sarah Priest. Ten participants formed two mock juries, and each mock jury were given two case studies to deliberate. Case study one described Priest as having “Severe Personality Disorder, Borderline Pattern” whereas case study two described Priest as having “Complex Mental Health Problems”. There were no changes to the content of the case studies aside from the change in language used to describe the defendant.

An inductive thematic analysis identified two main themes relating to juror experience: “Interaction with Other Mock Jurors” and “Language as a Barrier to a Verdict”. Participants constructed that prosocial interactions with other mock jurors in the deliberations helped them make a verdict decision, but some of these interactions led to disagreements between participants due to a wide variation of opinion. Second, the different description of the defendant in each case study were constructed to have made the deliberations and decision-making difficult, but for different reasons. In case study one, a lack of knowledge surrounding BPD was the reason for this difficulty, and in case study two, participants thought that the applicability of diminished responsibility criteria were unclear, making it hard to reach a verdict.

The findings have key implications for the judicial system; common experiences can be identified and recorded to implement procedures to protect jurors from adverse experiences.

There is a lack of studies that have investigated juror experience in the UK, and the few studies available have used a quantitative methodology. The approach taken in the current study is, therefore, unique in a UK context. The findings have key implications for the judicial system; common experiences can be identified and recorded to implement procedures to protect jurors from adverse experiences.

With the rapid advancement of generative artificial intelligence (AI), it is important to consider how young people are making sense of these tools in their everyday lives. Drawing on critical postdigital approaches to learning and literacy, this study aims to center the experiences and perspectives of young people who encounter and experiment with generative AI in their daily writing practices.

This critical case study of one digital platform – Character.ai – brings together an adolescent and adult authorship team to inquire about the intertwining of young people’s playful and critical perspectives when writing on/with digital platforms. Drawing on critical walkthrough methodology (Light et al., 2018), the authors engage digital methods to study how the creative and “fun” uses of AI in youths’ writing lives are situated in broader platform ecologies.

The findings suggest experimentation and pleasure are key aspects of young people’s engagement with generative AI. The authors demonstrate how one platform works to capitalize on these dimensions, even as youth users engage critically and artfully with the platform and develop their digital writing practices.

This study highlights how playful experimentation with generative AI can engage young people both in pleasurable digital writing and in exploration and contemplation of platforms dynamics and structures that shape their and others’ literate activities. Educators can consider young people’s creative uses of these evolving technologies as potential opportunities to develop a critical awareness of how commercial platforms seek to benefit from their users.

This study contributes to the development of a critical and humanist research agenda around generative AI by centering the experiences, perspectives and practices of young people who are underrepresented in the burgeoning research devoted to AI and literacies.